Statewide school funding change won't affect Irvine short-term

A new statewide school funding formula included in Gov. Jerry Brown's recently passed state budget is being hailed by some as a welcome, simplified model that will funnel more money to school districts in need. But the change will likely mean little for Irvine Unified School District in the near future.

The district could see a small bump in per-pupil funding next school year, but over the next several years, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) will probably not substantially alter Irvine Unified's funding levels from what they would have been under the old model, district officials said.

While the LCFF provides additional money to districts with high percentages of students who are economically disadvantaged, English learners or foster youths, it does not raise the base, per-pupil funding to an amount far above what Irvine Unified would have received from property taxes.

When the state education budget was slashed following the 2007-08 school year, Irvine switched to a Basic Aid funding model, which is required for California school districts in which local property tax revenue exceeds what would have been provided by the state.

Though the LCFF upped base, per-pupil funding enough that it likely will exceed Irvine's property taxes next year, John Fogarty, Irvine Unified's assistant superintendent of business services, said the district would likely move between Basic Aid and LCFF models for several years.

"Whichever side generates more revenue is more beneficial at this point," Fogarty said.

Fogarty said the district can't make a firm determination of how the new formula will affect Irvine Unified in the long run, though. As more homes are built and sold, property taxes should increase, but as more families move to the city, the district will increase in size, providing it with more total funding.

Irvine Unified School Board President Gavin Huntley-Fenner has been a vocal opponent of the LCFF, saying that while an overhaul of school funding could be worthwhile, he disagrees with Brown's method. In the past two months, he has written an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times against the new model and helped the school board pass a resolution asking Brown to amend the funding formula.

Huntley-Fenner's main concerns are that the LCFF does not provide enough base, per-pupil funding, provides less support to students from low-income households who attended districts below the 55-percent mark, and is altogether an unproven model.

He said he would rather see an evidence-based funding model that used performance indicators to reward districts that performed well, despite having low-income students or English learners.

"If you think that dollars drive performance, you ought to be encouraging practices that are proven effective and then use the resources at the state level to spread those best practices. I think that would be a better approach," Huntley-Fenner said.

But he also said that Irvine Unified could benefit from the small bump in base, per-pupil funding.

"There's no question that we'll be better off under the new budget than we were last year," Huntley-Fenner said. "But we won't be as well off as if the state immediately restored us to 2008 funding, and we certainly won't benefit as much as other districts."

The LCFF replaces a more complex system with many types of categorical funding. Fogarty said that Irvine Unified and other districts around California are still trying to figure out how the new model will affect them down the road.

"This is a funding formula that replaces a funding formula that has been in place for 40 years, and it's going to take some time to evaluate the full impact," Fogarty said.